Harris to end filibuster to support abortion

[jc456]

How did they get the three highly partisan Judges on the SC if they didn't abolish the filibuster for Supreme Court Justices.

Harry Reid wasn't very bright for demofks huh?

 

[task0778]

Accountable? The GOP obstruction is a feature of their party.

And the democrats are any different? Get real, dude.

 

[BlindBoo]

Harry Reid wasn't very bright for demofks huh?

Mitch McConnell's move not only ensures more blocking of SC nominees by not allowing a hearing or a vote by the Senate unless the presidents' party is in power, but also more partisan SC justices from both sides of the isle.

 

[sartre play]

This right here is why I cannot support Kamala Harris. She wants to end the filibuster so the democrats can pass abortion rights with 51 votes. It's only for abortion she says, but any idiot knows that once you abolish the filibuster for a specific reason it ends up being permanent for everything. And once that happens, there will be no more compromise or cooperation in the Senate and bipartisanship goes right down the drain.

Harris backs ditching filibuster to pass nationwide abortion protections, angering Manchin in the process

Vice President Kamala Harris declared Tuesday that she supported changing Senate filibuster rules to allow a simple majority vote to codify the nationwide right for women to obtain an abortion.

www.yahoo.com

The democrats came close to doing just that back in 2021 when they tried to abolish the filibuster but Manchin and Sinema wouldn't go along. One of these days, they're going to get it done and that's when we start down the road to a one-party rule gov't. If you think gridlock is bad, wait until you get one-party rule.

one party rule NOT GOOD.

 

[task0778]

Now it is likely that the only way a SC justice gets appointed is if the presidents' party also controls the Senate.

In the past, repubs have voted for liberal justices but not sure if the reverse is true. Anyway, you might be right; would the dems vote for a Trump appointed justice? Would the repubs vote for a Harris appointed justice? Either way, I don't know.

 

[bendog]

The SCOTUS did not rule Congress could not take it up. The only standing against would be to argue it violates States' rights.

So it would have to be framed and passed within a construct that falls within federal regulation power, like commerce.

And states have no rights, just powers. What Dobbs did was remove an individual right all women had to have an abortion in their home state

The federal legislature and potus could agree to a new law providing women have a right to obtain a medical procedure called abortion provided under specified circumstances ... assuming they can find a provider.

It's possible the SC would find the congress didn't have this power. I don't put anything past these "guys." But the congress doesn't have to fund a penny for the SC.

 

[bendog]

Mitch McConnell's move not only ensures more blocking of SC nominees by not allowing a hearing or a vote by the Senate unless the presidents' party is in power, but also more partisan SC justices from both sides of the isle.

Absolutely. McConnell weaponized the SC. I think he feared Americans might demand legislating socialism or some nonesense. the Latinos are never gonna go for that. Trump may get 40% of their vote, or more.

 

[task0778]

A party majority of 60 senators is rare. The filibuster is constantly abused. A lower number, like 54 votes, would be a reasonable compromise.

I'm not in favor of that idea. If one party can get 60 Senate seats then that is enough of a majority to earn the decision-making that comes with that. But 54? Not so much. At 54, the majority party could go looking for a couple of people to bribe who come from purple states. That's easier to do at 54 but at 60 it's kinda hard. The point behind having the filibuster in the 1st place is to foster compromise and cooperation, which obviously is in short supply these days. I think going to 54 won't help that; it would make C&C less likely. Weakening the filibuster is a bad idea IMHO, and abolishing it pretty much eliminates any chance for C&C altogether.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And the democrats are any different? Get real, dude.

Measurably. Join us in reality.

If the data counters your talking point, that's your problem.

 

[BlindBoo]

In the past, repubs have voted for liberal justices but not sure if the reverse is true. Anyway, you might be right; would the dems vote for a Trump appointed justice? Would the repubs vote for a Harris appointed justice? Either way, I don't know.

List of confirmation votes for the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jc456]

Mitch McConnell's move not only ensures more blocking of SC nominees by not allowing a hearing or a vote by the Senate unless the presidents' party is in power, but also more partisan SC justices from both sides of the isle.

It's what they do. Same thing happens the other party in the majority. Funny how you hate shit your own party does. So are you against the Demfoks doing that as well? Schumer is sitting on things today.

 

[jc456]

List of confirmation votes for the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That damn Harry Reid.

 

[bendog]

It's what they do. Same thing happens the other party in the majority. Funny how you hate shit your own party does. So are you against the Demfoks doing that as well? Schumer is sitting on things today.

That's not true. The irony was that McConnell said there wasn't enough time for Garland, but Kennedy was confirmed under Reagan with less time.

 

[Frankenstein]

Right. Her values didn't change. The lay of the land did. Now abortion must be federally protected, since it was deleted as a constitutionally protected right.

How can you not puzzle this out?

For "changing values", see Trump's flip flop on the Florida abortion law. He can do it seamlessly, in mere minutes.

How could it possibly be a constitutional right! It is not a constitutional issue, it's a life, murder issue Careful, you are about to step in it! Reichwinger

 

[blackhawk]

Just remember if you do this it will be the same for Republicans this won’t be some one time only thing.

 

[Frankenstein]

Well that's a difference between you and me.

I want the Senate to protect an important right for half the country.

You want to see someone fucked over, in the pettiest and most venomous way possible.

In fact, I think that about sums up one of the major contrasts in this entire election.

See that is just BS, she involved herself in risky behavior, she new it as did the man, but did it anyway, we have to stop abortion being used as after the fact birth control

 

[BlindBoo]

That's not true. The irony was that McConnell said there wasn't enough time for Garland, but Kennedy was confirmed under Reagan with less time.

Well it was the beginning of an election year. Just highlights Mitches ongoing hypocrisy. Barrett was confirmed days before the 2020 election.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just remember if you do this it will be the same for Republicans this won’t be some one time only thing.

So? Republicans want to remove the filibuster so they can take healthcare away from Americans.

Democrats want to remove it so they can guarantee a right to half the country.

So let the Republicans try.

 

[jc456]

That's not true. The irony was that McConnell said there wasn't enough time for Garland, but Kennedy was confirmed under Reagan with less time.

Don't know what to tell you bub. Needed the majority I guess. What's that obammy said, got to win to get your way.

 

[Frankenstein]

So? Republicans want to remove the filibuster so they can take healthcare away from Americans.

Democrats want to remove it so they can guarantee a right to half the country.

So let the Republicans try.

Rights for half the country?